Learn Something New Every Day

[icedtea4me]

The fact that there's a large hemmorhage that starts right at the uncut garrote, suggests to me that JBR was alive when strangled by the garrote.

Alive, but not necessarily conscious.


-Tea

 

[icedtea4me]

Secondary transfer? Is this the same secondary transfer that handles the presence of foreign DNA?

Please don't detract. We're now focusing on the presence of the cord fibers on JonBenet's bed, not the presence of foreign DNA. Therefore, with that said, are you implying that it is physically impossible for fibers from the cord to attach themselves to the kitchen knife during the cutting process, and then for those fibers not to be able to wind up on the bedsheets in the manner I described?


-Tea

 

[Britt]

The fact that there's a large hemmorhage that starts right at the uncut garrote, suggests to me that JBR was alive when strangled by the garrote.

That large abrasion looks to me like a mark made when the perp grabbed JB's top in her fist and twisted hard, choking her and digging knuckles, through the fabric, into JB's neck, just before the head bash. Then the "garrote" was added.

The condition of JB's neck, as well as the apparent slowed blood flow to the brain, suggest to me she was manhandled even before the head blow... make that womanhandled.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That large abrasion looks to me like a mark made when the perp grabbed JB's top in her fist and twisted hard, choking her and digging knuckles, through the fabric, into JB's neck, just before the head bash. Then the "garrote" was added.

The condition of JB's neck, as well as the apparent slowed blood flow to the brain, suggest to me she was manhandled even before the head blow... make that womanhandled.

Please don't detract. We're now focusing on the presence of the cord fibers on JonBenet's bed, not the presence of foreign DNA. Therefore, with that said, are you implying that it is physically impossible for fibers from the cord to attach themselves to the kitchen knife during the cutting process, and then for those fibers not to be able to wind up on the bedsheets in the manner I described?


-Tea

I'm not sure either story fits the JBR murder, but they're both very creative.

 

[BBB167893]

"The fact that there's a large hemmorhage that starts right at the uncut garrote, suggests to me that JBR was alive when strangled by the garrote."

I think you misunderstood me. I meant to say that the cord strangled her before it was made into the garrote, see? The garrote was built later.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"The fact that there's a large hemmorhage that starts right at the uncut garrote, suggests to me that JBR was alive when strangled by the garrote."

I think you misunderstood me. I meant to say that the cord strangled her before it was made into the garrote, see? The garrote was built later.

Sequencing is important. I don't think there's enough information to determine that the garrote was built after JBR was strangled with the cord. That would seem counterproductive and redundant to me, though. I suppose the claim that the crime scene was staged leads to conclusions like these.

IMO, there's an advantage an intruder has over the R's, as far as the weaponry is concerned. The R's have no use for a stun gun or garrote on their own daughter. Certainly if they were staging an accident to look like FFDI, they wouldn't need to stun-gun their own daughter while she was still alive. An introder, on the other hand, has this problem of moving JBR from the upstairs bedroom without disturbing her family. This is where the garrote ligatures and stun gun seem to have an actual, real application for the child-killer.

 

[aussiesheila]

Yeah, there is - it's called RDI.

Yes but the RDI theory doesn't explain the foreign DNA under her fingernails and the matching foreign DNA on her panties. It doesn't explain the red ink drawing of a heart on the palm of her hand or the pineapple in her digestive system or the secret visit by Santa after Christmas. It doesn't give satisfactory explanations for why the Ramseys called the police so early in the morning when if they had left it a bit longer they could have devised a much better coverup plan and could have even gotten rid of the body. It doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how a father or mother with absolutely not a hint of blemish in their past histories wrt any form of sexual abuse or violence towards either of their children would, out of the blue, commit a crime that included both forms of deviant behaviour at their most extremes.

They are just the things that come to mind immediately. There are probably other things too if I spent more time thinking about it.

 

[Jayelles]

Yes but the RDI theory doesn't explain the foreign DNA under her fingernails and the matching foreign DNA on her panties. It doesn't explain the red ink drawing of a heart on the palm of her hand or the pineapple in her digestive system or the secret visit by Santa after Christmas. It doesn't give satisfactory explanations for why the Ramseys called the police so early in the morning when it they had left it a bit longer they could have devised a much better coverup plan and could have even gotten rid of the body. It doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how a father or mother with absolutely not a hint of blemish in their past histories wrt any form of sexual abuse or violence towards either of their children would, out of the blue, commit a crime that included both forms of deviant behaviour at their most extremes.

They are just the things that come to mind immediately. There are probably other things too if I spent more time thinking about it.

Perhaps that's because the fingernail DNA doesn't "match" the panty-DNA. The fingernail DNA has only a small number of markers which are identifiable.

Supposing you are doing a wordgame where you have to make a word with 13 letters and you are only given 10 of the letters:-

_ _ ? _ _ _ ? ? _ _ _ _ _

dmmseeaiyn

That *could* be melindaramsey OK? Fairly strong case. It couldn't be John Ramsey though and it couldn't be Patsy Ramsey. Couldn't be Fleet White. So although you cannot say 100% that it is melindaramsey, you say it with a high degree of probability and you can rule the others out.

But you couldn't say for sure it was melindaramsey if you only had these three letters:-

eea

You couldn't say that it was a "match". Just that there exists the possibility.

That's like the fingernail and panty DNA. They only have a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - somethng like 3 markers from one hand and 2 from the other (or 2 and 1).

However, someone who is desperate for that DNA to be a "match" might try to claim is is a match on the grounds that melindaramsey wasn't actually ruled out.

It is significant that there is NO CREDIBLE source which states they are a match. It was claimed once - several years ago but has been noticeably dropped as a factual claim since then.

 

[narlacat]

Yes but the RDI theory doesn't explain the foreign DNA under her fingernails and the matching foreign DNA on her panties. It doesn't explain the red ink drawing of a heart on the palm of her hand or the pineapple in her digestive system or the secret visit by Santa after Christmas. It doesn't give satisfactory explanations for why the Ramseys called the police so early in the morning when it they had left it a bit longer they could have devised a much better coverup plan and could have even gotten rid of the body. It doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how a father or mother with absolutely not a hint of blemish in their past histories wrt any form of sexual abuse or violence towards either of their children would, out of the blue, commit a crime that included both forms of deviant behaviour at their most extremes.

They are just the things that come to mind immediately. There are probably other things too if I spent more time thinking about it.

Well, let's hope you don't Aussie, god knows what you will come up with

Not only are you wrong about the DNA, I really have my doubts whether or not that was a heart on JonBenets palm and it really is only hear say about the secret santa visit...you know, kids say all sorts of things about Santa at Christmas time.

The Ramsey's had to call the police at some time to put their phoney kidnapping plan into action, they were due to catch a plane at 7 or so....it had to look convincing remember....needed time to get up, shower, breakfast etc

There may not have been any history of violence but there's a first time for everything..and perfect families are sometimes not what they seem..

 

[aussiesheila]

If she was being jabbed repeatedly by a stun gun, she'd be straining against wrist restraints holding her hands above her head so hard there's no way even the tough pad of the palm would stop the bruising - she might even collapse and have her entire weight suspended by her wrists. Her palm pads aren't that tough anyway, she was only six. With the rope outside of her sleeve, she could easily slip her hand through the sleeve and be free, and if the rope was outside the sleeve with her hands tied above her head, I would expect to see some fabric burn on her wrists. There's no way she wouldn't be pulling.

This is all a matter of opinion and in my opinion none of what you say would have happened did actually happen. I do not think that bruising would have inevitably occurred around the wrists/hands while the stungunning and strangulation were taking place, even if you do.

There's physically NO evidence that her hands were restrained while she was alive at all, other than the laughably loose cord.

The intricate design detail in the wrist ligature is evidence that it was constructed with a specific purpose in mind and the design indicates that the purpose was not to tie the arms together but to attach them to some fixed point. If the wrist ligature was simply to tie her arms together it would have had an entirely different and much simpler construction and with only one knot, not four. The construction of the evidence he cord was not laughably loose, it was loose enough to not be cutting into the skin at her wrists yet tight enough to prevent the loops slipping over her hands. If you take a good look at the photo of the wrist loop still in place on the right wrist you can see that what I say is correct.

As for John Ramsey saying he loosened them - he's a liar. How long did he spend trying to loosen them? Didn't he see her, call out, rip off the tape, and then run upstairs with her? How could he even see the knots to loosen them in that dark room?

There is no proof that John Ramsey is a liar, it is not a fact, it is only your opinion. Neither of us knows how long John spent trying to undo the wrist knot, but however long it was he could see the knot because he had turned the light on in the cellar room.

And Coroner Meyer didn't untie the knots - he cut the cord and removed it to preserve the knots which were evidence.

Meyer did not cut the loop around the right wrist, he undid one of the knots. That this is so can be seen by comparing the photo I have just mentioned with the photo of the wrist ligature after Meyer had removed from the body. There is no cut.

Not to mention it's going to be incredibly hard to molest a girl who is standing. Her legs are in the way. This entire theory makes no sense.

We do not know what form the molestation took, other than that there appears to have been digital and/or paintbrush handle penetration, quite easily accomplished in the position I suggest JonBenet was restrained in.

I think you did say once that you thought Patsy Ramsey would and was willingly, knowingly allowing pedos access to her daughter.

I would like to see the post that you are referring to, because I have never said that. What I have said is that Patsy allowed JonBenet to be cared for by certain people in their homes and would not keep a close eye on her at parties where adults were present and would not know what was happening to JonBenet at these times. Virtually all parents do this because we don't expect the unthinkable to happen. But when it does there are usually some warning signs. There were an abundance of warning signs in JonBenet's case and all Patsy did was to take her repeatedly to Dr B, who reassured Patsy that everything was fine and not to worry about it.

What evidence do you have that Patsy Ramsey would even allow anyone in her house after ten pm on Christmas night when a trip to Michigan is planned for very early the next morning?

I've got as much evidence as the people have who say that John was molesting her, that Patsy bashed her over the head for wetting the bed and whatever other variety of RDI theory there is.

Patsy already had portfolios of photos of JonBenet from professional studios - she's not going to lower herself to waiting up til late Christmas night to let in some group of people who want pictures of her kid with Santa.

Well she didn't have photos of JonBenet published in fancy upmarket glossy magazines as far as I know, and if Santa was promising her that Charles Kuralt, famous photographer was most anxious to photograph JonBenet that night for the New Year's edition of one of these magazines, then I think Patsy might have let herself be persuaded, especially if Santa had been very pushy about it, as I expect he most likely would have.

I agree she sounds like a somewhat negligent mother, but that doesn't mean she was letting people in to molest her daughter very late at night. Don't you think she'd wonder about a group of people trooping in, especially if one of them was someone completely unknown to her (your theory's killer)? Don't you think she'd want to be there while her child is being photographed really late on Christmas night, if she even allowed that at all?

It was only going to be two people according to the story Santa was spinning her, himself and Charles, not a troop. I think she did stay up, intending to be there, but fell asleep on a sofa in the loungeroom.

And again, there is NO evidence whatsoever that FW was a pedophile or was associated with any pedophile rings.

There was no evidence that the priests were either.

Not JE either -and you never answered that question - why would JE cover for FW or anyone else in a pedophile ring? If you don't have any solid proof that FW or police were involved in helping a pedophile ring operate in Boulder, then you need to rethink your theory. Comparing a ring of pedos in Boulder with police covering for them is nowhere near the same as a rogue priest in a church molesting kids on his own. Yes, it happens, but there's no comparison between the two other than the act of secretive sexual abuse.

I base my theory on what I know of other cases of pedophile ring operations, there is very often collusion by corrupt police 'on the take'. Unfortunately JE's possible involvement with a pedophile ring was never investigated, which is not at all surprising considering that JE led the investigation fot the first 12 months, so it is not at all surprising that no evidence has been uncovered.

 

[aussiesheila]

I don't agree with your theory, but at least it has good sequencing.

BTW, how does your hypothesis explain the fibers from the ligature that was found in JBR's bedroom?

This one is interesting and I must admit I haven't come to a decision on it. The first thing is, is this another case of something being 'consistent with' rather that being 'exactly identical to'? Are the fibers from the ligature 'consistent with' the fibers on JonBenet's bed or are they 'exactly identical with'? I am not sure.

If they are only 'consistent with', it is easier for me to explain because then I think the wrist ligature would have been put on in the kitchen after Patsy had fallen asleep and the neck ligature not until they were down in the basement.

But if they are 'exactly identical to' then I think only the wrist ligature was tied on in the bedroom but only around one wrist, as well as the heart being painted on the right palm, both as in some kind of 'game'. Then I think JonBenet would have been led down to the basement with Santa leading her holding the cord. But the problem here is that I can't imagine this getting 'past' Patsy. I mean it would have looked a bit odd even to her, but you never know. So yes this is a bit problematic for my theory. Smart aren't you, for picking this up.

 

[aussiesheila]

After re-reading the autopsy description of the ponytails and studying a drawing and then trying it on my own hair, I've come to the conclusion that the hair was styled like that for sleeping.

The style - two ponytails, one high on the head and the other low in back - keeps hair out of the way and as intact as possible (for next morning styling purposes), yet it's comfortable to sleep in because the ponytails don't interfere with any sleep position.

So I don't think the hairstyle is connected to the staging. It was probably tied in pontails while getting ready for bed, maybe even by JB herself, before all hell broke loose.

I think I remember Patsy saying in one of her interviews that it was held in one tie (at the top of her head?) for sleeping.

 

[aussiesheila]

"Aussie, although many mothers do turn a blind eye to their daughters molestation, I don't believe the intruder drew a red heart on JB's hand. That is the kind of thing I'd expect Patsy to do."

There was something else about that, too. Allow me to quote the interviews:

DeMuth: How do you know there was a heart on her hand?

Patsy: Because it was there in the morning.

Hmmmm...

And a Hmmmm... from me too. Yes I think that was a bit of a slip there on Patsy's behalf. I think she went to the cellar some time before 5:30 am knowing JonBenet's body had been hidden there. I think she took the pink Barbie nightgown with her intending to dress her in something pretty and appropriate. I think she saw the red heart then, as that quote indicates she did.

 

[Camper]

I quote here in part from Jayelles post #208, "
You couldn't say that it was a "match". Just that there exists the possibility.

That's like the fingernail and panty DNA. They only have a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - somethng like 3 markers from one hand and 2 from the other (or 2 and 1).

However, someone who is desperate for that DNA to be a "match" might try to claim is is a match on the grounds that melindaramsey wasn't actually ruled out.

It is significant that there is NO CREDIBLE source which states they are a match. It was claimed once - several years ago but has been noticeably dropped as a factual claim since then."
end of partial quote.


Thank you Jayelles, I never kept close records on anything about this case, except about Johns 'airplane', and the Susanna Chase case. Anything I had is still packed in a box in my garage along with the Yahoo chats online with two WS posters, both of whom have disappeared or changed their hats!

Jayelles your information about the DNA under the fingernails, fits in with my theory of how the DNA in the panties happened. Some WS'ers remember.

A short review, panty DNA could have been picked up from
a toilet seat from wherever JonBenet had gone to the bathroom on Christmas Day or evening. A six year olds legs do not touch the floor when sitting on the toilet.

Tight leggings, and regular or oversized underwear IF she wore the 12's to the party could EASILY wrap around the toilet seat. Now that you have posted about the fingernail DNA, from your careful information stash, I was eager to know how much and how many fingernails were involved with the ME findings. JonBenet in trying to disengage her clothing from the toilet seat, explains in greater detail TO ME at least the HOW of how the foreign DNA arrived in her panties.

.


__________________

 

[aussiesheila]

Perhaps that's because the fingernail DNA doesn't "match" the panty-DNA. The fingernail DNA has only a small number of markers which are identifiable.

Supposing you are doing a wordgame where you have to make a word with 13 letters and you are only given 10 of the letters:-

_ _ ? _ _ _ ? ? _ _ _ _ _

dmmseeaiyn

That *could* be melindaramsey OK? Fairly strong case. It couldn't be John Ramsey though and it couldn't be Patsy Ramsey. Couldn't be Fleet White. So although you cannot say 100% that it is melindaramsey, you say it with a high degree of probability and you can rule the others out.

But you couldn't say for sure it was melindaramsey if you only had these three letters:-

eea

You couldn't say that it was a "match". Just that there exists the possibility.

That's like the fingernail and panty DNA. They only have a tiny number of markers in the fingernail DNA - somethng like 3 markers from one hand and 2 from the other (or 2 and 1).

However, someone who is desperate for that DNA to be a "match" might try to claim is is a match on the grounds that melindaramsey wasn't actually ruled out.

It is significant that there is NO CREDIBLE source which states they are a match. It was claimed once - several years ago but has been noticeably dropped as a factual claim since then.

OK I'll rephrase my reply -

Yes but the RDI theory doesn't explain the foreign DNA under her fingernails and the foreign DNA on her panties. It doesn't explain the red ink drawing of a heart on the palm of her hand or the pineapple in her digestive system or the secret visit by Santa after Christmas. It doesn't give satisfactory explanations for why the Ramseys called the police so early in the morning when if they had left it a bit longer they could have devised a much better coverup plan and could have even gotten rid of the body. It doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how a father or mother with absolutely not a hint of blemish in their past histories wrt any form of sexual abuse or violence towards either of their children would, out of the blue, commit a crime that included both forms of deviant behaviour at their most extremes.

They are just the things that come to mind immediately. There are probably other things too if I spent more time thinking about it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

RDI and IDI agree that at some point JBR's free will was taken from her.

The garrote cord fibers found in JBR's bedroom, and the evidence of stun gun on JBR, suggest that JBR's free will was taken from her right when she was removed from her bed. This makes sense in IDI, where the intruder has to move JBR quietly downstairs and not disturb the rest of her family.

So the evidence suggests the garrote was used on JBR to move her quietly downstairs, and not used as a prop for staging.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

There's no conclusive proof of a stun gun. That's just a theory.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
I think you did say once that you thought Patsy Ramsey would and was willingly, knowingly allowing pedos access to her daughter.

I would like to see the post that you are referring to, because I have never said that. What I have said is that Patsy allowed JonBenet to be cared for by certain people in their homes and would not keep a close eye on her at parties where adults were present and would not know what was happening to JonBenet at these times. Virtually all parents do this because we don't expect the unthinkable to happen. But when it does there are usually some warning signs. There were an abundance of warning signs in JonBenet's case and all Patsy did was to take her repeatedly to Dr B, who reassured Patsy that everything was fine and not to worry about it.



Okay, did some searching -

Thread: Members' Theories

Date: 08-21-2005, 06:46 AM

Post # 14


I think that JonBenet had suffered frequent sexual abuse for many years, probably for half her life, mainly when her father was away on business trips. I think that when the Ramseys moved to Boulder JonBenet was targetted by one pedophile in particular who befriended John and Patsy in order to gain access to JonBenet. He and his wife subsequently became ‘best friends’ of John and Patsy. I think that Patsy was aware that her child was being abused but I think she had been sexually abused herself as a child and saw it as ‘normal’ and so did nothing to protect her daughter. I think that the ‘best friends’ arranged for JonBenet to be treated by a pedophile pediatrician who was prepared to turn a blind eye to the abuse and to reassure Patsy that JonBenet’s bedwetting behaviour and recurring vaginal/urinary tract infections was all perfectly normal.


Thread: What if...

Date: 01-21-2006, 04:15 PM

Post # 91

I think Patsy was covering up for a group of pedophiles that she knew had been abusing JonBenet for years - the pedophiles who had inadvertently allowed a psychopath to join in their activities on that Christmas night, an unfortunate mistake that resulted in the death of JonBenet, in what the regular pedophiles had planned to be just another 'ordinary' night of 'ordinary' abuse.



Same thread

Date: 01-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Post # 139

But one thing I will agree with most people on is Patsy's behaviour. I will never argue with anyone who says it was strange because I think Patsy's behaviour is that of a guilty person - guilty of having known about knowing about her daughter's prior sexual abuse (which I believe is a fact), and then once it had led to her death, guilty of helping a pedophile group try to cover up all the sexual abuse and to pass her murder off as a kidnapping.



Same thread

Date: 02-06-2006, 04:33 AM

Post # 169

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

"Yes, I have worked with child sexual abuse in the past, so I have some knowledge of sexual deviancy. Even now I work in the sex profession. (no, not a sex hotline or anything like that. )

Right, I just don't think Patsy would have allowed this. I think someone, from somewhere would have spoken up about this subject if Patsy were involved. Even if not, I can't fathom that Patsy would have allowed this to continue because there would be no *reward* for her to do so. I'm not ruling out in my mind any sexual abuse within the home; I just don't think there was a ring of pedophiles using JB while Patsy allowed it.

But I do respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it."



Yes Nehemiah, I thought I remembered you mentioning that you had worked in the area of child sexual abuse.

So yes it is my opinion that Patsy did behave in this way but I do also think it must be an extremely rare thing for a mother to behave like this and so I cannot blame people for not going along with my opinion.

As for someone speaking up about this subject, I don't find it difficult to believe that people would not speak out.

First of all there would be people who would want to protect Patsy, who even though might be partly guilty, has lost her daughter and they would be feeling very sorry for her. Secondly, there would be those who were implicated in the prior sexual abuse (that I believe occurred) and they would only be exposing themselves if they spoke up. And thirdly there would be a huge and formidable upheaval in the family P dynamics that would need to be contended with if any of the Ps spoke up if my theory is correct.

I guess I would not be so persistent with my theory if it did not explain so well all the evidence, most particularly the only real hard evidence there is - the ransom note. If you can accept my theory then the whole ransom note makes complete sense and I don't think any other theory does that.

Oh, and you mentioned the "reward" for Patsy. Well what if there was no actual "reward" for allowing it to happen, but maybe a "punishment" if she tried to stop it. Perhaps Patsy was not even around when it first started. I think it most probably was when she was first diagnosed with ovarian cancer and unable to care adequately for JonBenet by herself, there would have been great opportunities for pedophiles to close in on JonBenet then. Maybe by the time Patsy got well again, began to suspect something and kicked up a fuss, these people, who were very close to her, even right within her family, began being extremely nasty to her and exerted extreme pressure on her to calm down and leave well alone. Pressure coming from within a family can be very powerful no matter what it is in relation to.

And thank you Nehemiah, for being so polite.

 

[BBB167893]

"I don't think there's enough information to determine that the garrote was built after JBR was strangled with the cord."

Well, how's this: there were no knot marks on her neck.

"That would seem counterproductive and redundant to me, though. I suppose the claim that the crime scene was staged leads to conclusions like these."

Yes, it does. Because it was staged. The police, FBI CASKU people, pathologists, etc. all agree with me. In fact:

"Someone took the time to stage strangulation...all after she was unconscious."-Dr. Werner Spitz.

"Certainly if they were staging an accident to look like FFDI, they wouldn't need to stun-gun their own daughter while she was still alive."

The stun gun is just theory, with almost nothing to it. The only pathologist who said there was one couldn't even recognize marks when one WAS used.

"Yes but the RDI theory doesn't explain the foreign DNA under her fingernails and the foreign DNA on her panties."

No need. It could have come from anywhere. The world is fairly bristling with human DNA, aussiesheila. Ask Dennis DeChaine.

"It doesn't give a satisfactory explanation of how a father or mother with absolutely not a hint of blemish in their past histories wrt any form of sexual abuse or violence towards either of their children would, out of the blue, commit a crime that included both forms of deviant behaviour at their most extremes."

Again, with that business. Look at me. No violent history. Could I have done this. You betcha!

"So the evidence suggests the garrote was used on JBR to move her quietly downstairs, and not used as a prop for staging."

What evidence are you looking at?

 

[UKGuy]

Sequencing is important. I don't think there's enough information to determine that the garrote was built after JBR was strangled with the cord. That would seem counterproductive and redundant to me, though. I suppose the claim that the crime scene was staged leads to conclusions like these.

IMO, there's an advantage an intruder has over the R's, as far as the weaponry is concerned. The R's have no use for a stun gun or garrote on their own daughter. Certainly if they were staging an accident to look like FFDI, they wouldn't need to stun-gun their own daughter while she was still alive. An introder, on the other hand, has this problem of moving JBR from the upstairs bedroom without disturbing her family. This is where the garrote ligatures and stun gun seem to have an actual, real application for the child-killer.

Holdontoyourhat,

If you consider the creation of the garrote and its application after JonBenet was dead, say to fabricate a staging, to be incorrect, why does your reasoning not extend to the ligature or cord itself?

What need is there for that, JonBenet is a 6-year old girl. To any adult she will offer little or no resistance. An older person's hands are sufficient to asphyxiate JonBenet, there is no need for a ligature, in your own words that would seem counterproductive and redundant!

There is more than enough information to demonstrate that the garrote was created after JonBenet was killed, but not enough to conclusively prove that she was not asphyxiated by the ligature alone.

This also includes the forensic evidence linkage to Patsy in the paint-tote, duct-tape, and the knotting on the garrote.

If JonBenet had been asphyxiated by the garrote as claimed, then what is the source of all the abrasions and contusions that are below the neat circumferential line left by the ligature?

If JonBenet had been garroted as claimed then there should be little or no injuries beneath the ligature, and possibly extended petechiae above along with obvious fingernail markings indicating a struggle.



.